This is complete bullshit. If you go into the an area with bears or a chance of bears who assume the risk of a bear attack. You have three choices: stay home, roll the dice or bring a gun to increase your odds.

I wonder what they'll use the money for. I know what the opportunistic lawyer will do with the money, but if I had a kid mauled this way, and I was given a huge settlement, I'm not sure what I'd do with it. Seems kinda water-up-the-bridge-ish to me.

Apparently, the govt failed to follow its own rules and tell the family that there was a dangerous bear in the area. The parents probably said that if they had received that warning, they wouldn't have camped there.

"During the trial, government lawyers argued that posted signs adequately warned the family of the potential dangers of bears. They also pointed out that Ives had brought a granola bar and Coke Zero into his tent, though Rebecca Ives testified during the trial that she didn’t know there was food nearby. But Judge Kimball’s ruling describes government employees as negligent, saying specifically that United States Forest Service law enforcement officer Carolyn Gosse failed to follow regulations and inform Ives’s family about a potential threat. Gosse was notified on the day Ives died that another camper visiting the area had been attacked by a bear earlier that morning. Judge Kimball attributes Ives’s death in part to Gosse’s failure to properly respond...."

Hmmm... Kimball is the same judge who initially handled the SCO vs Linux fiasco, where SCO originally claimed there were millions of lines of code from Unix in Linux. After a very long trial, he ruled against SCO because there was no code in Linux that was stolen from Unix. Oh, did I forget to mention they don't own the rights to Unix either?

In the comments, from someone familiar with the story, mentions that the family was careless with their food at the campsite. I am truly sorry for their loss, but if this is indeed true, it should negate the FS's culpatility (as long as there was posting a bear problem at the trailhead).

Michael, according al's link, the bear caused problems 12 hours earlier -- I don't expect any government agency (except the weather service) to be so nimble as to erect warning signs in so short a time, and how would that help someone in the park already?

A good idea when camping is to assume the worst will happen. And then stay in a motel.

Animal rights groups are protesting the decision. Their spokesbear, Ima Maroon, was disappointed that the bear, a living being with rights equal to or exceeding that of evil human beings, was not awarded a minimum of 50% of the credit for the kill. She described the Judge as a "typical white bearist" who could not overcome generations of bear prejudice.

His parents Kevan Francis and Rebecca Ives filed a lawsuit against the federal government and the US Forest Service arguing that authorities failed to warn them that a dangerous bear was prowling the area.

Next: parents who let their child go into the lake and he/she drowned, sue government for failing to warn that water is wet.

Soon: parents of child who sustained a terrible sunburn that may cause skin cancer sue government for failing to warn that the sun is hot.

Clue to clueless parents: the world is full of danger and it is YOUR responsibility to be aware of it.

The forest is full of animals who want to eat your food and eat YOU if you aren't careful.

Too bad the bear didn't eat them too and end their sojourn in the shallow end of the gene pool.

To be serious for a moment, if the US Forest Services had been relocating dangerous bears and cougars into the area, like the are doing in our local National Forests (which really pisses us off), they should have had a notificiation of that practice.

If that wasn't the practice, then how can you hold the government responsible for the actions of one of hundreds of wild animals.

The forest isn't the zoo. It isn't Disneyland. Even Bambi would kill you if he could.

It seems strange that you would sue the feds and state for a wild animal, but if the facts showed the ranger knew about a dangerous bear and did not take proper steps, I could see how they could be liable.

I caution everyone. I hate forming an opinion on a court case based on a newspaper clipping. 92% of the time (and yes that is a riff off Judge Kimball), there are pertinent details left out that would clarify exactly why the case went the way it did. In my opinion, the only people who have the perspective to know if the ruling was fair or not are those who were actually in the court room during entirety of the trial.

You'd think, but it happens a lot. It's not just food, it's food scented clothes or any scented items. You also don't cook anywhere near your tent.

The FS is pretty good about posting these general safety rules at the trail heads (where you're supposed to check in). I have seen specific warnings at trail heads, myself, so it makes me wonder if staffing issues was the reason this previous bear incident wasn't posted.

Wait a minute. Has the Federal Tort Claims act extended its coverage to a failure to warn tourists about bear sightings? How about some immunity for honest governmental discretionary acts here. If this case is good, then what about the hundreds of crimes committed by Hispanic illegals that Holder and Obama are inviting to cross the so called border and then refuse to deport when apprehended?

traditionalguy, I do not think there are some rash of tort claims against the feds. That is why I suspect the facts may distinguish this one. Plus it involves a kid gettng killed which is pretty emotional too. But I do not know enough about it.

Who needs signs? Minimal awareness is all you need to know that when you get off the beaten track in Utah, Wyoming, Montana, Colorado, Nevada, Idaho and California you are in probable bear country. And Arizona and New Mexico. In other words the whole west. For once the gummint was not to blame.

Sonicfrog’s caution about prejudging the case based on the excerpt is a good one. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve read a story about a seemingly “outrageous” court decision only to find that I changed my mind as I learned more about the specific facts that went into the decision that weren’t disclosed in any of the early reporting. Traditional guy’s point about the Federal Tort Claims Act seems like a good one and I’d be curious to see how this was addressed by the court.

I like to know about bear attacks wherever they occur in America. And if a bear attack recently occurred in the woods where I'm about to camp, I definitely want to know about that attack.

How about you just assume that there may be dangerous bears, coyotes, mountain lions, wolves, foxes, snakes, spiders and evil blue jays (as well as illegal Mexican drug cartels) that are not anxious to share their space with you and act accordingly.

The wilderness is not an organized neat place where the staff can post "instant alerts" for the latest accidents or attacks that occured in the last day or so. The wilderness is not a theme park.

However, if there has been a rash of attacks over time there should be some notification.

Just go on the assumption that there is danger. That's how I roll when I go into the urban wilderness as well.

Once upon a time, in a law school far, far away I learned of an arcane concept- proximate cause. Apparently it has gone the way of the dinosaurs. Actually, it was eaten by a school of sharks using the packatheappelatecourts method of hunting.

ripic, I don't think the FS is at fault, either, but disagree with you about the need for signs. They're good reminders and can provide important, trail-specific, information, for those not that familiar with the area. Also, it'd behoove you to consider WI probable bear country, as well.

I know the safety protocol, but it's pretty much impossible to avoid having the scent of food at a campsite. Humans need to be armed in the wilderness to be safe - period. I want to be, but it's often illegal. Still, I do what I have to. Like they say, better ask for forgiveness than to be eaten.

The good news for the parents is not the cash settlement, but the finding that they were only 10% responsible. If I were the parent of a child mauled in similar circumstances, I would go through life second guessing myself. As they visit the gravesite, they can perhaps take comfort in the fact that only 10% of the guilt is theirs.

Sure, the parents might have been more savvy, but they trusted the government (mistake number one). When the government sets itself up as your nanny and claims to manage the wildlife and the human life in their extensive western holdings, when they allow amateurs to camp overnight, a reasonable man would expect them to follow through and actually protect!

When I commented on the wolf thread, I was going to add, "The next step is the wolf will kill a a child. Handwringing and lawsuits will commence. The wolf hunt will be delayed again and the one 'bad' wolf will be shot." It's happening faster than I thought.

This is just an educated guess, but I bet the events went something like this. I'll bet that the previous bear attack happened before the Ives got to the park. I'm betting that Gosse made the decision that gate attendants NOT inform incoming campers at the gate when they paid to gain entrance into the park, but instead posted signs warning there are bears in the area. Signs like these are all over the national parks. I see them all the time when I hike Yosemite. We're used to them and don't pay much attention to them. Maybe they posted more urgent signs, but a sign doesn't carry the same type of urgency as a verbal warning. This was probably shown to be a decision made by Gosse in part to prevent the loss of money made at the gate, which would explain why Gosse resigned from the Forest Service.

Being armed when you're a day's hike from your car and out of cell range is simple common sense precaution. You need a fall-back versus both the four-legged dangers...and the two-legged versions. They're the wiley one's, after all.

I wouldn't trust luck where my kids are involved. I prefer a little prep and well-maintained firearm.

@Dust Bunny Queen: Well it's not that hard for employees just to say "there was a recent bear attack." And it doesn't seem unreasonable to require such employees of the United States Forest Service to inform campers (God forbid government employees be required to do something).

And if something were to happen to you in the "urban wilderness", I would expect someone to be responsible despite your dangerous assumptions.

So people are clear; there was a bear attack 12 hours earlier at exactly the same camp site. Not in the general area, but at the same place. The park rangers failed to inform visitors as they entered or them specifically.

The Federal Tort Claims Act doesn't have any caps, and its basic provision states that the US is liable "in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances, but shall not be liable for interest prior to judgment or for punitive damages." (28 USC Sec. 2674). The remedy against the US is exclusive (Sec. 2679), meaning that you cannot sue the allegedly negligent federal employee if the employee was acting within the scope of employment. There are a list of exceptions (Sec. 2680) but none of them applies to a failure to warn about a dangerous condition.

Failure to warn cases are a routine type of tort claim. Whether a particular warning was required, or whether the failure to warn was the proximate cause of the claimed damages, are also routine but fact-bound issues. The judge resolved them (FTCA cases are tried to the court without a jury), and his findings can only be set aside on appeal if they are clearly erroneous (a high and rarely met standard, especially in a tort case).

As another commenter said earlier in the string, it's easy to carp about the judge's ruling but only someone familiar with the trial record has a factual basis for doing so. The rest is just uninformed blather.

Well it's not that hard for employees just to say "there was a recent bear attack." And it doesn't seem unreasonable to require such employees of the United States Forest Service to inform campers (God forbid government employees be required to do something).

Have you ever BEEN camping? Have you ever been to a National Forest in the Western states?

While it is a good idea to be able to notify people of imminent danger and post warnings in campgrounds and put public warnings about specific dangers in some central location, it is just impossible to have the few rangers running around 'notifying' people of danger in an area that is bigger than most counties, bigger than some States.

Just how do you propose that the few rangers, say to people scattered over thousands of miles that there is danger. If they miss one person, like a needle in a haystack, they should be to blame?

DUH.....the forest, the wilderness, is dangerous.

And if something were to happen to you in the "urban wilderness", I would expect someone to be responsible despite your dangerous assumptions.

I'll deal with the bears and lions and tigers....oh my.

Probably have a better chance of survival with them than with driving a rental car through certain neighborhoods Miami or Oakland.

Having someone to 'blame' doesn't excuse stupidity and putting yourself in danger.

"Have you ever BEEN camping? Have you ever been to a National Forest in the Western states?"

No, I haven't. And I assume Mr. Ives didn't either before his death. I imagine one of the purposes of the United States Forest Service is to warn ignoramuses like myself of possible dangers... like dangerous bears (the worst kind of bears).

If the government is going to take charge of the forests, it should be held responsible for when it is negligent.

Bears get all the press--it's become a pain in the Ursa Major. The obvious bear bias in the MSM warns you to be on the lookout for bears-of-color with nary a mention of the lurking mountain lion threat. PWND! -cp

Joe said... So people are clear; there was a bear attack 12 hours earlier at exactly the same camp site. Not in the general area, but at the same place. The park rangers failed to inform visitors as they entered or them specifically.

When I was a kid my parents took us on a summer vacation out west. We saw many bears along the road. People would stop and take pictures. Some would feed the bears. One couple tried to put their toddler on the back of a bear for a souvenir picture. Not a good plan.

Anyway, I learned that bears in the wilderness are a fairly common sight. If I were to go camping in these areas I would take precautions. This is the wild, not Disney Land.

As for the monetary award, if the bear was not a government employee, the government should not be at fault.

That a bear attack occurred at the same campsite and the bear was still on the loose is a salient fact that the rangers should have alerted campers of. It was a higher risk than normal situation...lets say I am sure the ranger herself had no plans to do overnight camping there herself..and safety information was not passed on to others as regs required of her.

======================Tradguy - "If this case is good, then what about the hundreds of crimes committed by Hispanic illegals that Holder and Obama are inviting to cross the so called border and then refuse to deport when apprehended?"

That is a fine point, IMO. If we sue the Feds for not capturing, relocating a dangerous bear...what about whan a dangerous illegal they refuse to deport goes on to harm US citizens?

That a bear attack occurred at the same campsite and the bear was still on the loose is a salient fact that the rangers should have alerted campers of.

That is an important point and the government or the managers of the campsite DID have an obligation to warn people of that event.

Put up a sign or something in a prominent place and hope that people aren't too stupid to read, understand it and take the proper precautions. (I doubt it would work. People still will think that the forest is Disneyland.)

If we sue the Feds for not capturing, relocating a dangerous bear

Perhaps we should sue the government for relocating the dangerous bear in our neighborhood.

How about suing the government for their catch and release program with the dangerous illegals who are growing pot and operating meth labs in the same forest locations as the nasty bears? At least the bears aren't armed with automatic weapons.

I usually carry pepper spray if hiking or camping in bear country. It is much easier to hit a bear with pepper spray than a handgun (plus my handgun is not powerful enough to reliably stop a bear).

The national park rangers tend to be soft on the problem bears. They don't try hard enough to instill fear in problem bears (bears that hang around a campsite). Any bear at a campsite needs to be hit with pepper spray at a minimum.

A couple of years ago I was at Yosemite at Glacier Point when a mama bear (ear tagged as a problem bear) and her two cubs got between my wife and I.

The park rangers' Yosemite newspaper complained that relocating these problem bears was a waste of their time because the bears kept coming back.

I was in a building with 40 children in a residential/industrial area 40 miles from DC, and a huge black bear ran through the playyard minutes after the toddlers had gone inside.

There are too many damn bears. Pa Ingalls was right -- bears are for killing. They're our enemies. I grew up on a farm in PA, and now we're too afraid to camp or walk on our own property that had previously been bear-free for 200 years. It's called civilization.

I imagine one of the purposes of the United States Forest Service is to warn ignoramuses like myself of possible dangers... like dangerous bears (the worst kind of bears).

In the general sense, they do (their website, at their headquarters and at the trailhead), but you, as an ignoramus hiker/camper need to know what your getting into and plan accordingly. If you're in bear area, it might be in your best interest to stop in for some updated information.

Crunch Frog: Just lovely.But on the bright side, there's no need to strain to invent a name for the region. IIRC there's a country near India that has this situation - they call it the "Tribal Area".Every country should get one.

These people, the parents of the dead kid are really something.... quite a piece of work.

"This situation could have been prevented had they simply taped off the area," Rebecca Ives said

WTF?. Do they think this is CSI Crime Scene and that some police tape would stop a hungry bear from attacking?

NOW....they want to jump on the victim bandwagon.... "They suggested the federal government create a more instantaneous alert system which they dubbed a "Sam Alert."

Perhaps a robot with some twirling red lights, sirens and waving arms....."alert alert danger Will Robbins.....animals are in the woods...run away, run away!!!"

Meanwhile, sonicfrog thinks that there are Gate Attendants in National Forests, like flight attendants who show you to your seat and make sure you are properly buckled in. Perhaps they gave out the fatal candy bar?

It's the same mentality that doesn't believe that Clovis Man didn't wipe out a shitload of large land mammals in North America, but does believe that the CIA created the Black Plague back in the 1340's.

So people are clear; there was a bear attack 12 hours earlier at exactly the same camp site. Not in the general area, but at the same place. The park rangers failed to inform visitors as they entered or them specifically.

In that case, I'm glad they won.

Doesn't every camper know not to bring food into the tent?

I didn't know that. But then, I'm not a camper. (Though I'd like to be.)

"No, I haven't. And I assume Mr. Ives didn't either before his death. I imagine one of the purposes of the United States Forest Service is to warn ignoramuses like myself of possible dangers... like dangerous bears (the worst kind of bears)."

I don't work for the park service but I will take it upon myself to inform you that bears are dangerous animals. I would warn anyone going into bear country to understand that bears are not your friends. They have the capacity to maim and kill. It is wise to travel with bear spray at the least and bear spray and heat optimally. Cougars will also eat you or simply kill you for fun.

So people are clear; there was a bear attack 12 hours earlier at exactly the same camp site. Not in the general area, but at the same place. The park rangers failed to inform visitors as they entered or them specifically.

This story drives me nuts. People who have never been camping in a wilderness area have no idea of what it is like and are making judgments as if these people were in Disneyland or some sort of controlled environment.

1. They were camping in an undeveloped area. NOT a cute little campground with paved roads, concrete picnic tables, bathrooms or ANY other amenities. The camping area was at the edge of a dirt road in the WILDERNESS. It wasn't a DESIGNATED or official campground.

2. If there was a bear attack/incident previously, unless the forest rangers were able to follow that particular bear around the miles of wilderness, there is no way to know that it was the SAME bear. Clue people: there are many bears in the woods. So even IF they were able to follow the bear around to try to trap it.....12 hours is a very short time and it is almost impossible to track a bear without dogs.

3. When you enter a National Forest or many National Parks.....PEOPLE>>>>>>it isn't Marine World an amusement park. There are many ways to get into the area. There may not be any rangers around when you enter. There often is not a cutsie kiosk and flight attendant to guide you to your campsite, which in this case was just some place at the end or side of a dirt road.

The Park or National Forest Headquarters is often located far far away from the actual forest or park. Miles away. If the campers had gone to that headquarters and asked they might have gotten some specific information.

4. There were signs all over the place telling people about the danger of bears. Not just this one bear but ALL bears.

5. They violated the basic safety rules of camping. They slept with food!!!!! And that makes YOU food. It is like hanging a bag of chum around your neck and then go swimming with the sharks.

I have some sympathy because they lost their child.

However, I have no sympathy for STUPID people and these parents qualify in spades

Everybody isn't born in a forest and suckled by a she wolf. Until the Marine Corps got a hold of me, I was a NYC kid who thought Central Park was the wilderness. You assume that these people should have known all the "rules" of the wilderness. Why? Perhaps they were nothing more then weekend campers who just wanted to see some of the wilderness THEY'RE TAX DOLLARS SUPPORT. I guess the could have stayed home and left it to all the Daniel Boones out there, but those crazy folks actual wanted to see some of that nature they've heard so much about. What they should have had was a sign telling you you must report into the Ranger station before you set up camp. At that point you get advised of the rules, and sent on your way. Either that or have on your person, the official "rule" book,available from the Forest Service. At that point the Forest Service will have done all they could, and the taxpayers will be off the hook.

I don't understand the logic of most of the comments here: how did the government CAUSE the death? At what point did most people accept this math: failure to prevent=cause? If I cross the center line and hit someone driving the other way I cause the collision. If I see someone driving on the left hand side of the road and I don't warn the person coming from the opposite direction I don't cause the collision, do I?

I don't understand the logic of most of the comments here: how did the government CAUSE the death? At what point did most people accept this math: failure to prevent=cause? If I cross the center line and hit someone driving the other way I cause the collision. If I see someone driving on the left hand side of the road and I don't warn the person coming from the opposite direction I don't cause the collision, do I?